You know, I think that the word „patriotism“ has a different meaning today than it did when I was growing up. It used to mean a love of one’s native land and one’s people: one’s fatherland, according to the etymology of the word. The fatherland was the land where one’s ancestors had been born and where a large extended family — everyone descended from those ancestors who originally had settled the land — now lived. Patriotism really had a tribal or racial meaning. It was a feeling based on blood. And although our ancestors had come to America from all parts of Europe, they were enough alike that they still could feel the bond of blood. They still felt themselves members of a large family, a family with European roots, and they could stand together as brothers against those who were not part of the nation. Whether they came from Scotland or Ireland or England or Sweden or Germany or Poland they could fight together against Indians or Mexicans. They felt their kinship, and that was the basis of their patriotism.

Well, that racial meaning of patriotism is one that the people who control our mass media obviously don’t like. They’ve multiculturalized patriotism along with everything else. Their propaganda for a new brand of patriotism is pretty blatant stuff. I’m sure you’ve seen the television ads a hundred times where a very diverse bunch indeed — Blacks and Browns and Yellows, with a few Whites thrown in — proclaim sequentially, „I-am-an-American.“

These days, to be „patriotic“ means to wave the flag and shout slogans whenever the mass media deem it appropriate. It means to cheer the government whenever the government decides to use its cruise missiles or its smart bombs to kill a bunch of people in some other country, regardless of the reason. Instead of blood-based patriotism, today we have government-based patriotism. If you wave the flag and support the government, you’re a patriot. If you don’t like what the government is doing and you say so, then all of the flag-waving, slogan-shouting yahoos look at you as if you are the enemy.

Back in the 19th century American patriots — real patriots — were winning land for us from mestizos and pushing them back across the Rio Grande. „Remember the Alamo!“ was a patriotic slogan then. Today it’s something the media and the government want us to forget or to feel embarrassed about, as the mestizos come flooding back in this direction again in a great wave of re-conquest: the reconquista. And the government in Washington is helping them. They’re flooding not just into Texas and the other parts of the Southwest, but wherever greedy employers want cheap labor. And if you raise your hand against this government-sponsored invasion, if you try to push a few mestizos back across the border, you’re not considered a patriot; you’re a terrorist or a „hate criminal.“

Two years ago, in July 2000, a group of White men chased some Mexicans out of a park in Billings, Montana. Just chased them out, told them the park was for Whites, didn’t hurt anyone. Last week a Federal judge in Billings sentenced one of the White men to 15 years in prison and two other White men to 10 years each. For chasing some Mexicans out of a park. The media thought those sentences were just about right. So did the Bush government, which had one of its Justice Department Jews, a Mark Blumberg, acting as prosecutor. Fifteen years in a Federal prison for chasing some Mexicans out of a traditionally White park, without actually hurting anyone. If you looked carefully you could have seen that in an Associated Press report from Billings last Saturday.

Imagine the Billings situation reversed: Mexicans chasing Whites out of a barrio park in some Browned-out area of Texas or California. Do you think the Federal government would rush a Jewish prosecutor to the area to make sure that the Mexicans were locked up for 15 years? Let me tell you, the Bush government would pretend that nothing had happened. There wouldn’t even be a prosecution. Patriotism, government style, these days means not fighting back against what is being done to the country that our ancestors fought and bled to win for us.

At least, that’s one side of government-style patriotism. The other side, as I said a moment ago, is to wave your flag and cheer mindlessly whenever the government, on orders from Israel, kicks the bejesus out of some little country without an adequate air-defense system. The government-style patriots never ask why we’re beating up somebody or pounding some other country back into the Stone Age. They don’t really care. They’re as mindless as baseball fans. To them all that matters is that our team is pounding the other team, and so they cheer.

It used to be that, in order to have the patriotic support of the people, the government had to have a good reason for starting a war. It used to be that our people had to feel that they were defending themselves — or at least, defending some legitimate American interest — before they could feel patriotic about killing people in other countries. Making it easier for Israel to hang on to stolen Arab land in the Middle East is not a legitimate American interest. But the government-style patriots, with the little flags tied to their car antennas, don’t need a reason. It makes them feel good that their government is able to kick sand in the face of just about anybody else on the beach and get away with it. They like cheering for the biggest bully in the block, as long as the bully is successful. They cheer the government in the same way the Roman mob used to cheer for their favorite gladiator in the Colosseum.

I spend half an hour every day scanning through the TV news channels — not primarily to find out what has happened in the world, but rather to find out what the party line is on what’s happened in the world. In this regard, Fox News is probably the most revealing. Nearly every day Fox interviews one or more Defense Department consultants or retired generals or other government officials as „experts“ on the current U.S. war in the Middle East. Without an exception these „experts“ are enthusiastic supporters of the current war. Was our blasting of Afghanistan and the ousting of the government there a good thing? They are absolutely certain that it was. Should we start another war with Iraq next? They are unanimous in their opinion that we should. What about Iran? Hell, yes, we can lick them too. But never a reason. Never an explanation of why it is good for us to tear up all of these countries, beyond the fact that we’re bigger than they are and can get away with it: no explanation of how it serves our interests, of how it makes the world a better place for America.

With „experts“ like that to set the tone, it is no wonder that the yahoos are going around with their chests stuck out now because we beat up Afghanistan and will go around with their chests stuck out even further after we beat up Iraq or Iran.

You know, I just said that no one ever asks why we have to whip all of these other countries. Of course, the stock answer, if you raise the question to one of the Fox News „experts,“ is that we’re „fighting terrorism.“ What we’re doing in the Middle East now is waging a „war against terrorism,“ they’ll tell us. Well, that’s an explanation that doesn’t bear close examination. If our war aim is to protect ourselves from terrorism, why do we need to wage war against Iraq? Iraq has never inflicted any terrorism on us or even threatened to do so. Every Fox News „expert“ takes it for granted that it would be a good thing to kill Saddam Hussein. Why is that? Saddam Hussein is not a fanatical Muslim fundamentalist who is likely to do anything wild and crazy against America that would provoke retaliation.

I’ll tell you what Saddam Hussein is. He is a strong leader of his nation. He may be a mean and ruthless SOB — he may be the kind of fellow you wouldn’t want your sister to marry — but he is a strong leader who refuses to take orders from Jews or from the U.S. government. He does not threaten America and has no reason to do so unless he is pushed into a corner, but the Jews are worried that he might provide help to the Palestinians. They are worried that he will be a threat to further Israeli expansion in the Middle East because he refuses to be bullied or bought. That is the reason that all of the Fox News „experts“ agree that it would be a good thing to assassinate him — although they won’t come right out and state that reason. Instead they give us the standard, mealymouthed party line about Iraq and Saddam Hussein being a potential terrorist threat that we need to neutralize.

Of course, if we do wage war against Iraq or against Iran, then we will have to worry about terrorist reprisals. When they have nothing else to lose, then they will strike at us with whatever means they have. But if we mind our own business and look out for our own interests, neither Iran nor Iraq has any reason for provoking us. If we had been looking out for our own interests before September 11 instead of for Israel’s interests, 3,000 Americans who lost their lives on that day would still be alive.

Sometimes the Fox News „experts“ use a more abstract justification for killing people in other countries who haven’t done anything to us: they might do something to us in the future, so we’d better kill them now. The notion that they put forward in a roundabout fashion is that the only way for America to be safe is to kill off everyone who has the potential for hurting us in the future: which is to say, everyone who has the resources for developing weapons of mass destruction and who also refuses to take orders from us. That’s a rather interesting way of looking at things, and some rather extreme conclusions can be drawn from it. But if our government actually did believe that is the best way to protect America, then we should launch an all-out nuclear attack on Israel immediately. Israel not only already has developed a very dangerous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction but also is a psychotic nest of murderous thugs posing a danger to the whole world. More than that, Israel has repeatedly shown itself willing to use terrorist tactics against anyone, including America, anytime it thinks it can get away with it.

A memorable example of that is Israel’s murderous attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967, which killed 34 American servicemen. The Israelis attacked our ship without warning, using jet aircraft (supplied by the United States) and torpedo boats. Their plan was to sink the Liberty, kill all the survivors in the water by strafing, and then blame it on the Egyptians, in order to cause hostility between the United States and Egypt. That was not the first time Israel had tried such a trick, but it was the most murderous. It failed only because the radio operator aboard the Liberty was able to get off a message identifying the attackers as Israelis before the attack had knocked out all of the Liberty‘s communications.

But of course, the Fox News „experts“ who advocate going to war against Iraq and Iran, sending in occupation troops, and then placing them under puppet governments, because otherwise they might someday develop weapons of mass destruction and use them against America, would faint dead away if it were suggested to them that the same reasoning should be applied to Israel, but even more so. These same „experts“ also pretend that the reason for the September 11 attack was that Osama bin Laden „hates our freedom“ and had nothing at all to do with the U.S. government’s support for Israel.

One might forgive this sort of behavior on the part of the yahoos. In a sense they don’t know any better. They’ve been raised with the new patriotism — the government-patriotism — and they really don’t see anything wrong with cheering a government that attacks other countries that haven’t attacked us. All that matters to the yahoos is that their team beats the other team: Yea! We’re the greatest! Don’t mess with us!

But people don’t get to be generals by being so shallow in their sensibilities and understanding. The Fox News „experts“ understand all the subtleties of the issues involved, but they’re too crooked to speak the truth.

I’m sure that it didn’t used to be so bad. I’m sure that the „experts“ have become more crooked than they used to be, and the truth has become a scarcer commodity. This was brought to mind last week by the media uproar when a Baptist preacher’s remarks to President Richard Nixon, made 30 years ago, came to light. Billy Graham, the high-profile celebrity preacher, media star, and adviser to presidents, was about as oily as other Baptist preachers most of the time, but occasionally he spoke frankly on sensitive subjects, as the Oval Office tapes from the first half of 1972, released to the public last week by the National Archives, reveal.

During a meeting with Nixon and others in the Oval Office on February 1, 1972, Graham complained about the total domination of the mass media of news and entertainment in America by Jews. This Jewish control of the media certainly was no secret. I had published the first edition of my exposé of Jewish media control, complete with names and mug shots, which I titled „Who Rules America?,“ in 1968. Every politician and other leading figure in Washington knew about the Jewish domination of the media; they were just afraid to talk about it for fear of reprisals from the Jews. The result of this timidity was that Sally Soccermom and Joe Sixpack didn’t have a clue. The big shots all knew what the Jews were up to, but they were afraid to tell the public. Most of the big shots were even afraid to discuss the Jews among themselves.

In 1972, however, Billy Graham not only complained to Nixon and others in the Oval Office about the Jewish stranglehold on the media, he understood what this Jewish media control was doing to America, and he told those in the Oval Office, and I quote, „This stranglehold has got to be broken, or the country’s going down the drain.“ — end of quote — President Nixon agreed with Billy Graham, but he was too cowardly to do anything about it. Nixon said, and again I quote from the Oval Office tape, „I can’t ever say that, but I believe it.“

That’s a poor commentary on the quality of leadership we have in America. The President understands what Jewish media control is doing to the country, but he is afraid to take any action to protect the country. He prefers to stand aside and let the country go down the drain. And you know, he could have stopped it then. There were enough top military leaders then who still had some old-fashioned patriotism. With a little planning, every Jewish media figure from Hollywood to Madison Avenue could have been arrested and eliminated in a single day. The same thing could have been done with the courts, the Congress, and the Federal bureaucracy. A clean sweep could have been made. The country could have been pulled back from the brink and put on an entirely different course.

Think what an enormous difference that would have made during the past 30 years. We could have cut off all immigration from the Third World and from Asia. The whole hip-hop, rap, MTV culture being pushed by the Jewish entertainment media could have been nipped in the bud. All of the Jewish filth and poison and brainwashing that America has been saturated with during the past 30 years could have been flushed down the drain in 1972, and the country could have been put on an upward course again.

The flow of weapons and money from the United States to Israel could have been halted in 1972, and Israel would have ceased to exist the following year, during the 1973 war. There would be no belligerent Israel in the Middle East today with a nuclear, biological, and chemical arsenal threatening to spark the Third World War and providing the impetus behind the efforts of every other country in the region, Iraq and Iran included, to develop their own weapons of mass destruction in order to counter Israel. But the man with the power to change everything, the man who understood that it needed to be done, the President of the United States, was afraid to act, afraid even to talk about it except among his associates in the White House.

Things clearly are worse today. When Billy Graham’s 1972 conversation with Richard Nixon was made public last week, Graham was afraid to acknowledge it. He said that he didn’t remember the conversation, but he groveled and apologized anyway. And I cannot imagine anyone in the Bush government today having the courage or the honesty even to have a conversation in the White House about what the Jews are doing to America and to the world and what needs to be done to counter them. Richard Nixon was a crook and a coward, but George Bush is far worse. And the top military leaders today are far less patriotic than the ones of 30 years ago were. The top military leaders today are like the retired generals that one sees being interviewed on Fox News: a sorry lot indeed, who will not even acknowledge the reason for the September 11 attack on America. The are not patriots; they are prostitutes.

The men who control America’s mass media are the men who really rule America today. They understand that, and the prostitutes do too. It is essential to both the rulers and the prostitutes that no real patriots gain the power to upset their applecart. The military system over the past 30 years has evolved in a way that weeds patriots out early and keeps them from reaching the top. Actually the military leadership system has been evolving that way over the past 50 years, with an Affirmative Action promotion policy that favors non-Whites and looks with suspicion on White males who still have old-fashioned ideas about patriotism. But 30 years ago there were still a few patriots willing to speak out. General William Westmoreland was the last of these really to say much.

The political system is even worse. It ensures that only men like Bill Clinton and George Bush can reach the highest levels: totally corrupt men, with absolutely no sense of honor or responsibility or real patriotism. We are in real trouble, and it will take real patriots to get us out, but real patriots are in short supply these days. What we have today masquerading as patriots are crooks at the top and flag-waving yahoos at the bottom.

Nevertheless, there still are a few real patriots, a few old-fashioned patriots, here and there, and as America continues down the drain I will not be surprised to see one or two of these begin to take action of some sort, but it is unlikely that they will act through the conventional channels of electoral politics or the armed forces.

National Geographic aired a new show, “Genius” focusing on the life of Einstein, claiming he solved the mysteries of the universe despite being hated by Germans for being Jewish. In reality, Einstein was a plagiarist, communist, Zionist and a fraud. He is a constructed myth.

Orwell warned us that tyranny begins with the abuse of language, and that “who defines controls.” With these thoughts in mind, we need to take another look at some important political terms which have been so loaded with connotations by propagandists posing as historians, entertainers, teachers and journalists that a loaded word tends to preclude our thinking. Instead, our thinking should be stimulated toward achieving solutions to the social/national problems now confronting us.

Consider the word, “socialism”. Proponents of various political ideologies have tried to monopolize this word to define their specific and often divergent social programs, while other political ideologists, who are equally socialistic in their thinking, deny that they are socialists, and seek to label their opponents with the term. In practice, socialism addresses any society, whether that society be monarchistic, theocratic, democratic, plutocratic, kleptocratic, anarchistic, etc. Society appears to have natural limits as to inclusivity, as we see in the Balkans and India, where distinct societies live within uneasy proximity to one another, maintaining their separate and distinct identities despite centuries of coexistence and race-mixing. Social-thinking and so-called socialist programs cannot be applied outside of the society in question. These practical limits were demonstrated in World War I with the most recent collapse of international socialism, which was premised on the myth of international working class solidarity. The various proponents of this Second International Socialism betrayed their principles in favor of their respective national loyalties, which caused millions of working class men to be killed in the ensuing war. World War I was the graveyard of nationalism and international socialism.

That disaster led to the formation of Third International Socialism under the Jew, Vladimir Ulyanov, alias Lenin. Like all internationalist doctrines, this kosher brand of socialism was a cloak for Jewish imperialism: universalism on behalf of tribalism. Mussolini, a long time socialist, saw that nationalism could be the only basis for socialism. When things were serious, people fought for their own kind and not for some utopian scheme of unrealized possibilities. Mussolini’s Fascism was basically an economic system based on the real constituencies of the Italian state: the land owners, industrialists, workers, peasants, the army, the monarchy and the church. The previous de jure regional constituencies of the Italian parliament were irrelevant, and Italy was frozen in a state of governmental gridlock, with strikes, lockouts, growing poverty and disorder. So it was that the King of Italy appointed Mussolini his prime minister, for he had nothing to lose. As history teaches, Mussolini got Italy working harmoniously, not as a dictator, but as an arbitrator who worked to achieve a consensus from Italy’s disparate classes and interest groups. Because Mussolini depended on consensus derived from a balance of power, his rise was swift and easy, just as his fall was swift and easy.

Hitler had also learned hard lessons from history. He was also a social thinker and saw great strength in the mating of two major political ideas: nationalism and socialism, both of which had huge numbers of adherents in postwar WW I Germany. Instead of basing his state on economics, Hitler based the new German state on race. National Socialism was, in practice, a form of totalitarian populism. It was far more democratic than any regime in the U.S.A. or Britain, and it was also more authoritarian, in that the leaders were authorized to fulfill their responsibilities and were also accountable to their people. Savitri Devi said that National Socialism was a temporal expression of cosmic truth. For these reasons, it took the Jews and their minions much greater effort to remove Hitler from office than it did Mussolini.

So-called internationalism is really Jewish imperialism. The Jews have long used such internationalist ideologies as Communism, Christianity and Capitalism to achieve their goal of world domination. Jewish imperialism or Zionism, uses any tool to bring about The Jew World Order and the enslavement of mankind, just as a carpenter uses any tool to build a cabinet, whether it be a saw, a hammer, a drill, a plane, etc. A wise observer does not say that the woodworker is a ‘driller’, a ‘planer’, a ‘sawyer’, etc, but a carpenter. A wise political observer will not view a seeker of world conquest as a Christian, a Communist or a Capitalist, but will understand that the user of these means is a Jew or Zionist who seeks to achieve, as an end, world conquest and enslavement. Jews have always used other peoples as their agents toward the achievement of their evil ends. These peoples are called “golem“, a murderous monster which kills the Jews’ enemies toward the advancement of Zionist domination. The British were the Jews’ golem in the l9th century and the Americans are their golem of the 20th century. Of course, the golem are unnatural creatures, so they destroy themselves as they obey their Jew masters. Will the Chinese be the Jews’ golem in the 21st century? Stay tuned!

The Year 1942 – Part 5

Andrew Joyce PhD is a scholar, speaker and writer with academic expertise in immigration, ethnic and religious conflict, and philosophy. Andrew sits on the Editorial Advisory Board of The Occidental Quarterly and is a regular contributor to The Occidental Observer. He also serves the British Renaissance Policy Institute in an advisory capacity and will be producing and editing a new journal for BRPI. He is in the final stages of preparing for publication Talmud and Taboo: Essays on The Jewish Question.

Dr. Joyce joins us for another critical look inside the history and events that continually lead us back to the immense Jewish question. To begin, Andrew highlights his academic journey and how he arrived at tackling the vast obstacles embedded within our propagandized Western history to get to the truth of Jewish influence. We discuss their role during the Middle Ages as middleman merchants in close alliance with the elite powers that be, when the practice of usury transformed the means by which Europe was expanded and consolidated. Andrew explains some misconceptions about Jewish emancipations during the medieval period, many of which were influenced by the weakening of monarchal power and the rise of parliamentary democracy in host nations. Then, we consider how the Jewish proclivity of exploiting weaknesses within the flawed democratic system, their fierce ethnocentricity, and deep fear of being racially and genetically disseminated has compelled them to intensely strategize against gentiles. Andrew talks about the cycle of greed within the monarchy system that led to numerous Jewish expulsions and the clever maneuvers that repeatedly brought them and their money back into the untouchable ruling elite fold. We also look at the current calamity of governmental errors driving Europeans to extinction and how Jews have contributed in shaping the demographic suicide of the West.

In the members’ half, we address the concern that there tends to be an unhealthy obsession with the JQ and how we can study our own weaknesses in terms of damaged ethnic cohesion in balancing this weighty issue. Dr. Joyce stresses that we must find rational ways to communicate to the average citizen how our deprived sense of historical peoplehood coupled with the barrage of guilt inducing MSM and academic programming is leading us to the slaughter. We talk about the great power of face to face persuasion and leading by example, along with using humorous memes and trolling in encouraging our folk to adopt a sense of nationalistic pride. Then, Andrew illuminates how Jews have used a backdoor trial and error approach to slowly infiltrate special interest groups aiming to clamp down on freedoms to criticize detractors, and we look at what a massive cultural shift might look like if Whites can employ that same diligence in reversing the pathologically blind response to their destruction. Further, we discuss the immense responsibility that lies in safeguarding the inheritance of our future generations, which ultimately requires a strong ethnic brotherhood standing in radical resistance to the invading cultures that have no place within our own. At the end, we get into the idea that everything happening now with the push for multiculturalism in the West is just history repeating itself, and if we are to reverse this creeping genocide we must bring more awareness, raise the stakes, and adapt an attitude of total success.

When the Syrian military launched a counter-offensive in an attempt to respond to an attack from Al-Qaeda militants in the Golan Heights, it was stopped by an airstrike from the Israeli Air Force—raising serious questions about why Israel is protecting the infamous terrorist group.

The Israeli Defense Forces announced the airstrike on Twitter on Friday, referring to the counter-offensive as a “projectile launched towards Israel from Syria.”

In response to the projectile launched towards Israel from Syria, IAF aircraft targeted the Syrian military position that fired the mortar.

There were reports of the Al-Qaeda linked Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham rebels resuming their offensive in Golan Heights on Monday, and targeting the Syrian military with “a barrage of mortar shells and rockets,” followed by “a large number of militants storming the [Syrian military’s] defenses around Tal Ahmar.”

When Syria responded with a counter-offensive that included rockets and artillery shells, they received a response, not from the Al-Qaeda linked forces, but from Israel.

Israeli Defense Forces responded by using their warplanes to target fire at two Syrian tanks in response to “‘over 10 projectiles’ which had landed in the Golan Heights.” However, the Syrian government is claiming that instead of hitting the tanks, the IDF “hit a parking lot and a residential building, causing civilian casualties.”

Golan Heights is the contested territory between Israel and Syria, which has been occupied by Israel from Syria since 1967. During a speech in April 2016, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that the land “will remain forever” under Israel’s control.

Map of Golan Heights

The territory is also a major source of oil. As The Free Thought Project has reported, Israel has been exposed for “covertly supporting Syrian rebels in the disputed Golan Heights territory—providing funds, fuel, food, and medical supplies—according to fighters insisting they’ve received such aid.”

The region is claimed by Genie Oil, a company that has a range of investors, from Rupert Murdoch, to Dick Cheney, to Jacob Rothschild. In order to ensure that the hydrocarbon-rich territory continues to profit Israel and its interests, some Syrian rebels claim they have received around $5,000 a month from the Israeli government.

“Israel stood by our side in a heroic way,” Moatasem al-Golani, spokesman for the “Knights of the Golan” group told the Wall Street Journal. “We wouldn’t have survived without Israel’s assistance.”

As Israel begins receiving a record $3.8 billion each year in aid from the United States, as part of the largest military assistance deal in U.S. history, Tel Aviv appears to be on the same page as Washington when it comes to foreign policy.

In fact, the latest act of aggression from the U.S. towards Syria occurred on June 18 when the U.S.-led coalition in Syria shot down a Syrian warplane that was targeting ISIS militants near Raqqa.

While the U.S. claimed the Syrian military was targeting the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, Syria has insisted that its forces were “advancing in the fight against ISIS terrorists who are being defeated in the Syrian desert in more ways than one.”

In the same way that the U.S. appears to be protecting ISIS militants, Israel appears to be protecting Al-Qaeda militants, and while both nations target the Syrian government, they do so without consideration of the support Syria receives from Russia, and the global conflict it is creating.

Part II

“If it is ‘anti-Semitism’ to say that communism in the United States is Jewish, so be it; but to the unprejudiced mind it will look very much like Americanism. Communism all over the world, not in Russia only, is Jewish.”(Henry Ford Sr., 1922)

“The task of the proletariat is to create a still more powerful fatherland with a far greater power of resistance, the Republican United States of Europe, as the foundation of the United States of the World.”(Leon Trotzky (Bronstein), Bolshevism and World Peace, 1918)

Count Czernin, Austrian foreign minister wrote: “This Russian bolshevism is a peril to Europe, and if we had the power, beside securing a tolerable peace for ourselves, to force other countries into a state of law and order, then it would be better to have nothing to do with such people as these, but to march on Petersburg and arrange matters there. Their leaders are almost all of them Jews, with altogether fantastic ideas, and I do not envy the country that is government by them. The way they begin is this: Everything in the least reminiscent of work, wealth, and culture, must be destroyed, and the Bourgeoisie [Middle Class] Exterminated. Freedom and equality seem no longer to have any place on their program: only a bestial suppression of all but the proletariat itself.”(Waters Flowing Eastward, p. 46-47)

“Rollin, Pierred Leroux, and a group of socialists, among whom was Maurice Joly [His father was Philippe Lambert Joly, born at Dieppe, Attorney-General of the Jura under Louis-Philippe for ten years. His mother Florentine Corbara Courtois, was the daughter of Laurent Courtois, paymaster-general of Corsica, who had an inveterate hatred of Napoleon I. Maurice Joly was born in 1831 at Lons-le-Saulnier and educated at Dijon: there he had begun his law studies, but left for Paris in 1849 to secure a post in the Ministry of the Interior under M. Chevreau and just before the coup d’etat. He did not finish his law studies till 1860. [Committed suicide in 1878].

Joly, some thirty years younger than Cremieux, with an inherited hatred of the Bonapartes, seems to have fallen very largely under his influence. Through Cremieux, Joly became acquainted with communists and their writings. Though, until 1871 when his ambition for a government post turned him into a violent communist, he had not in 1864 gone beyond socialism, he was so impressed with the way they presented their arguments that he could not, if the chance were offered, refrain from imitating it.

And this chance came in 1864-1865, when his hatred of Napoleon, whetted by Cremieux, led him to publish anonymously in Brussels the Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu. In this work he tells us, ‘Machiavelli represents the policy of Might, while Montesquieu stands for that of Right: Machiavelli will be Napoleon, who will himself describe his abominable policy.’ It was natural that he should choose the Italian Machiavelli to stand for Bonaparte, and the Frenchman Montesquieu, for the ideal statesman: it was equally natural that he should put in the mouth of Machiavelli some of the same expressions which Venedey had put in it, and which Joly had admired. His own view was: ‘Socialism seems to me one of the forms of a new life for the people emancipated from the traditions of the old world. I accept a great many of the solutions offered by socialism; but I reject communism, either as a social factor, or as a political institution. Communism is but a school of socialism. In politics, I understand extreme means to gain one’s ends, in that at least, I am a Jacobin.”

“Szamuelly travelled about Hungary in his special train; an eye witness gives the following description: ‘This train of death rumbled through the Hungarian night, and where it stopped, men hung from trees, and blood flowed in the streets. Along the railway line one often found naked and mutilated corpses. Szamuelly passed sentence of death in the train and those forced to enter it never related what they had seen. Szamuelly lived in it constantly, thirty Chinese terrorists watched over his safety; special executioners accompanied him. The train was composed of two saloon cars, two first class cars reserved for the terrorists and two third class cars reserved for the victims. In the later the executions took place. the floors were stained with blood. the corpses were thrown from the windows while Szamuelly sat at his dainty little writing table, in the saloon car upholstered in pink silk and ornamented with mirrors. A single gesture of his hand dealt out life or death.'” (C. De Tormay, Le livre proscrit, p. 204. Paris, 1919, The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 122)

“When the Jew applies his thought, his whole soul to the cause of the workers and the despoiled, of the disinherited of this world, his fundamental quality is that he goes to the root of things. In Germany he becomes a Marx and a Lasalle, a Haas and an Edward Bernstein; in Austria Victor Adler, Friedrich Adler; in Russia, Trotsky. Compare for an instant the present situation in Germany and Russia: the revolution there has liberated creative forces, and admire the quantity of Jews who were there ready for active and immediate service. Revolutionaries, Socialists, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks, Majority or Minority Socialists, whatever name one assigns to them, all are Jews and one finds them as the chiefs or the workers IN ALL REVOLUTIONARY PARTIES.”(Rabbi J.L. Manges, speaking in New York in 1919; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 128)

The Jew Weininger, has explained why so many Jews are communists: “Communism is not only a national belief but it implies the giving up of real property especially of landed property, and the Jews, being international, have never acquired the taste for real property. They prefer money, which is an instrument of power.”(The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 137)

“The socialist intellectual may write of the beauties of nationalization, of the joy of working for the common good without hope of personal gain: the revolutionary working man sees nothing to attract him in all this. Question him on his ideas of social transformation, and he will generally express himself in favor of some method by which he will acquire something he has not got; he does not want to see the rich man’s car socialized by the state, he wants to drive about in it himself. The revolutionary working man is thus in reality not a socialist but an anarchist at heart. Nor in some cases is this unnatural. That the man who enjoys none of the good things of life should wish to snatch his share must at least appear comprehensible. What is not comprehensible is that he should wish to renounce all hope of ever possessing anything.” (N.H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movement, p. 327; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 138)

“In our decrees, it is definitely proclaimed that religion is a question for the private individual; but whilst opportunists tended to see in these words the meaning that the state would adopt the policy of folded arms, the Marxian revolutionary recognizes the duty of the state to lead a most resolute struggle against religion by means of ideological influences on the proletarian masses.”(The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 144)

“In 1923, Trotsky, and Lunatcharsky presided over a meeting in Moscow organized by the propaganda section of the Communist party to judge God. Five thousand men of the Red Army were present. The accused was found guilty of various ignominious acts and having had the audacity to fail to appear, he was condemned in default.”(Ost Express, January 30, 1923. Cf. Berliner Taegeblatt May 1, 1923. See the details of the Bolshevist struggle against religion in The Assault of Heaven by A. Valentinoff (Boswell); The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 144-145)

“In that which concerns the Jews, their part in world socialism is so important that it is impossible to pass it over in silence. Is it not sufficient to recall the names of the great Jewish revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries, Karl Marx, Lassalle, Kurt Eisner, Bela Kuhn, Trotsky, Leon Blum, so that the names of the theorists of modern socialism should at the same time be mentioned? If it is not possible to declare Bolshevism, taken as a whole, a Jewish creation it is nevertheless true that the Jews have furnished several leaders to the Marximalist movement and that in fact they have played a considerable part in it.

Jewish tendencies towards communism, apart from all material collaboration with party organizations, what a strong confirmation do they not find in the deep aversion which, a great Jew, a great poet, Henry Heine felt for Roman Law! The subjective causes, the passionate causes of the revolt of Rabbi Aquiba and of Bar Kocheba in the year 70 A.D. against the Pax Romana and the Jus Romanum, were understood and felt subjectively and passionately by a Jew of the 19th century who apparently had maintained no connection with his race!

Both the Jewish revolutionaries and the Jewish communists who attack the principle of private property, of which the most solid monument is the Codex Juris Civilis of Justinianus, of Ulpian, etc…are doing nothing different from their ancestors who resisted Vespasian and Titus. In reality it is the dead who speak.”(Kadmi Kohen: Nomades. F. Alcan, Paris, 1929, p. 26; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 157-158)

“It would however be incomplete in this respect if we did not join to it, cause or consequence of this state of mind, the predominance of the idea of Justice. Moreover and the offset is interesting, it is the idea of Justice, which in concurrence, with the passionalism of the race, is at the base of Jewish revolutionary tendencies. It is by awakening this sentiment of justice that one can promote revolutionary agitation. Social injustice which results from necessary social inequality, is however, fruitful: morality may sometimes excuse it but never justice.

The doctrine of equality, ideas of justice, and passionalism decide and form revolutionary tendencies. Undiscipline and the absence of belief in authority favors its development as soon as the object of the revolutionary tendency makes its appearance. But the ‘object’ is possessions: the object of human strife, from time immemorial, eternal struggle for their acquisition and their repartition. This is Communism fighting the principle of Private Property.

Even the instinct of property, moreover, the result of attachment to the soil, does not exist among the Jews, these nomads, who have never owned the soil and who have never wished to own it. Hence their undeniable communist tendencies from the days of antiquity.”(Kadmi Cohen, pp. 81-85; Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon de Poncins, pp. 194-195)